Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10316/100855
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorReis, P. N. B.-
dc.contributor.authorAmaro, Ana Paula-
dc.contributor.authorNeto, Maria Augusta-
dc.contributor.authorMessias, Ana-
dc.contributor.authorRamos, João Carlos-
dc.contributor.authorMoreira, Maria-
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-15T09:06:13Z-
dc.date.available2022-07-15T09:06:13Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.issn19718993pt
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10316/100855-
dc.description.abstractUp to this moment, there is no guideline regarding the materials to produce mouthguards. The most used is Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA). Studies indicate that laminating EVA sheets with rigid components could increase the protection capacities of the mouthguards. On the other hand, other studies suggest that only replacement of the material within its structure can increase energy absorption. Therefore, this work aims to evaluate the impact response of four different foils when compared to a 4 mm thickness EVA sheet. Five different materials were subjected to impact tests with energies of 1.72 J, 2.85 J and 4.40 J. In this context was considered the following materials: EVA foils (G1), EVA foils with an EVA foam core (G2), EVA foils with an acetate core (G3), Foils of Erkoloc-pro (G4) and Foils of Ortho IBT resin (G5). Comparisons between the materials were made by qualitative analysis of the average energy-time and load-displacement curves, as well as by comparison of the peak load, maximum displacement, contact time and absorbed energy using the Kruskal-Wallis test. It was possible to conclude that statistically significant differences were found in the energy absorbed (p=0.001). Laminated foils with a soft core (G2) are a good option to produce mouthguards, while EVA foils with an acetate core (G3) and foils of Ortho IBT resin (G5) were declared unsuitable.pt
dc.language.isoengpt
dc.relationFCT UIDB/00285/2020pt
dc.relationFEDER funds through the program COMPETEpt
dc.rightsopenAccesspt
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/pt
dc.subjectMouthguardpt
dc.subjectImpact responsept
dc.subjectThermoforming foilpt
dc.subjectMechanical testingpt
dc.titleImpact response of different materials for sports mouthguardspt
dc.typearticle-
degois.publication.firstPage63pt
degois.publication.lastPage69pt
degois.publication.issue57pt
degois.publication.titleFrattura ed Integrita Strutturalept
dc.peerreviewedyespt
dc.identifier.doi10.3221/IGF-ESIS.57.06pt
degois.publication.volume15pt
dc.date.embargo2021-01-01*
uc.date.periodoEmbargo0pt
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.fulltextCom Texto completo-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.author.researchunitCEMMPRE - Centre for Mechanical Engineering, Materials and Processes-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0001-5203-3670-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0001-5237-0773-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-4019-9379-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-1965-1092-
Appears in Collections:FMUC Med. Dentária - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais
I&D CEMMPRE - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

5
checked on Apr 15, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

2
checked on Apr 2, 2024

Page view(s)

174
checked on Apr 9, 2024

Download(s)

74
checked on Apr 9, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons